2021 (4) TMI 130 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent-authorities without conducting fair and proper enquiry and without giving adequate notices to all stake holders and aggrieved persons has passed impugned exparte confiscation order - HELD THAT - Since prima facie the order under challenge is passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order/endorsement issued by the 1st respondent as per Annexure-T is not sustainable and the same is set aside. The matter stands remitted back to the 1st respondent to hear afresh by affording opportunity to the present petitioner herein. The 1st respondent authority is directed to first hear the petitioner on application filed seeking release of goods as well as vehicle - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to order passed by appellate authority, seeking mandamus for admission of appeal and fair hearing, detention and confiscation of goods under CGST Act, violation of principles of natural justice in appellate authority's decision.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a transporter, challenged an order by the appellate authority and sought a writ of mandamus for fair consideration of the appeal. The petitioner was transporting goods when intercepted by the Commercial Tax Officer, who demanded documents under CGST Act. Despite providing the required documents, the goods were detained, leading to a representation by the consignor for release. The authorities initiated proceedings under Sections 129 and 130, ultimately issuing an ex parte confiscation order, which the petitioner appealed. The petitioner contended that the appellate authority violated principles of natural justice by hastily passing the confiscation order. The Additional Advocate General representing the respondents conceded that the order might not be sustainable due to lack of opportunity for the petitioner to present their case. Consequently, the High Court set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the appellate authority for a fresh hearing, emphasizing the importance of affording the petitioner a fair opportunity to present their case.

The petitioner had also deposited the penalty tax and fine, prompting the court to direct the Appellate Authority to consider the application for release of goods and vehicle. The court emphasized the need for the authority to hear the petitioner on the release application and proceed in accordance with the law. Subsequently, the Appellate Authority was instructed to pass appropriate orders on the application and then proceed to hear the main matter after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. The court disposed of the writ petition with these directives, instructing the petitioner to appear before the 1st respondent on a specified date, keeping all contentions open for further consideration.